4 ms·

I didn't become the person I am today as a result of anyone else's effort but my own. No one took my exams for me, nor did they read my textbooks and do the men

I didn't become the person I am today as a result of anyone else's effort but my own. No one took my exams for me, nor did they read my textbooks and do the mental work of integrating facts and diagrams and the like. No one made me love my wife, or decide to get married. No one else decided that I would learn or do anything that did me any good. Why do you assume I was a well-off kid, or that I had great a social support network? There were a couple of times (early on) when my parents were flat-out broke. I didn't wear new clothes to school until I was thirteen. Even the poor inner city kid has free choice. It is simply not true that all people will deterministically fail given the same adverse circumstances. Why did Michael Faraday rise to become a prominent physicist and chemist, despite his poor background and total lack of social support? At adulthood, despite whatever adverse conditions endured previously, all people are responsible for their own lives (excepting people who truly cannot help it, i.e., those with grave mental illnesses).

tptacek 15y ago
If you think social policy should be premised on the idea that any random person is likely to be Michael Faraday, there probably isn't much productive discussion about policy to be had with you. That doesn't make you wrong, just an intractable absolutist.
- maxharris 15y ago
  I don't think that any particular random person, given only that information and nothing more, is likely to be the next Faraday. But I know for a fact that it is possible for any person to be, and that the same can't be said for any other type of living entity (e.g., a dog). And for the record, I am a contextual absolutist, which is something altogether different than an absolutist.
  - hans00 15y ago
    "contextual absolutist" - nice oxymoron, Einstein.
    - maxharris 15y ago
      Seriously, it isn't an oxymoron. To claim certainty in a given context of knowledge is foundational for both philosophy and the special sciences (such as physics, chemistry, etc.) Contextual absolutism amounts to saying, "Given all the things I know (this is part of the context), I am absolutely certain of this conclusion. I am aware that it is possible that I might come across yet more facts that might cause me to revise or even abandon my conclusion, but right now, I know this much." (To conclude that something is possible, or probable, and not yet certain is itself an example of this process.) To use your example, people often claim that Newton was proven wrong by Einstein. But I disagree. Newton's context included observations of the local solar system, and depended on the instruments of his time. His system still works in the majority of situations encountered today. Because the context hasn't changed appreciably in those situations, we can apply his mechanics and claim that they are correct. Conversely, GPS and particle physics and the like are out of bounds, contextually. For that, you must understand relativity, which is another truth that is absolutely true in a still wider context. Of course, there is a price to pay for relativity, which is extra computational and pedagogical complexity. Indeed, this alone is enough to keep Newton around for millennia to come. Remember that knowledge is not an end in itself, despite what some may say. All knowledge is a means to some end. We don't all know the same things, and we can't anyway. Finally, how could we ever get to the point where we can appreciate relativity, or engineer systems where it is necessary to know about that if we were to simply discard Newton's theory as "false"? Science (and indeed all knowledge) is all about what some deride as mere "scaffolding." But I don't deride it - and that's why I'm a contextual absolutist.
- nitrogen 15y ago
  IMO social policy should focus on the average case, but with easy-to-access exceptions dealing with the best and worst cases. Society is done a great disservice if gifted students are prevented from reaching their potential (thus preventing them from being as beneficial to society as they could) for the sake of the potential dropouts.
dctoedt 15y ago
> I didn't become the person I am today as a result of anyone else's effort but my own. Just as I'm not posting this reply as a result of anyone else's effort but my own (not). > Even the poor inner city kid has free choice. ... At adulthood, ... all people are responsible for their own lives (excepting people who truly cannot help it, i.e., those with grave mental illnesses). I used to think free will and personal responsibility were among the absolutes of the universe. These days I'm not nearly so sure. We know so little about why different people perceive the world, and choose behaviors, in such different ways. "Grave mental illness" seems to be just one end of a continuum.
- maxharris 15y ago
  I disagree. I would say something like, "I decided to drive 70 MPH instead of 65, or to drive over flying, or this particular route instead of the other one, which is more scenic, but slightly longer, etc." I am not in any way saying that people don't reap the benefits of living in society with other people. But your ability to travel at 70 MPH came as a result of people thinking on their own first, which set the stage for productive exchanges between people on a team. The fact that this is a virtuous cycle often confuses people into thinking that thought is a collective activity. But it is not: while I have benefited immensely from people grading my exams and papers, in conversation, code reviews, pair programming (from an earlier career), etc., I still had to prepare for all of those things alone. Without independent thought, what value could I bring to the table?

tptacek 15y ago

If you think social policy should be premised on the idea that any random person is likely to be Michael Faraday, there probably isn't much productive discussion about policy to be had with you. That doesn't make you wrong, just an intractable absolutist.

maxharris 15y ago
I don't think that any particular random person, given only that information and nothing more, is likely to be the next Faraday. But I know for a fact that it is possible for any person to be, and that the same can't be said for any other type of living entity (e.g., a dog). And for the record, I am a contextual absolutist, which is something altogether different than an absolutist.
- hans00 15y ago
  "contextual absolutist" - nice oxymoron, Einstein.
  - maxharris 15y ago
    Seriously, it isn't an oxymoron. To claim certainty in a given context of knowledge is foundational for both philosophy and the special sciences (such as physics, chemistry, etc.) Contextual absolutism amounts to saying, "Given all the things I know (this is part of the context), I am absolutely certain of this conclusion. I am aware that it is possible that I might come across yet more facts that might cause me to revise or even abandon my conclusion, but right now, I know this much." (To conclude that something is possible, or probable, and not yet certain is itself an example of this process.) To use your example, people often claim that Newton was proven wrong by Einstein. But I disagree. Newton's context included observations of the local solar system, and depended on the instruments of his time. His system still works in the majority of situations encountered today. Because the context hasn't changed appreciably in those situations, we can apply his mechanics and claim that they are correct. Conversely, GPS and particle physics and the like are out of bounds, contextually. For that, you must understand relativity, which is another truth that is absolutely true in a still wider context. Of course, there is a price to pay for relativity, which is extra computational and pedagogical complexity. Indeed, this alone is enough to keep Newton around for millennia to come. Remember that knowledge is not an end in itself, despite what some may say. All knowledge is a means to some end. We don't all know the same things, and we can't anyway. Finally, how could we ever get to the point where we can appreciate relativity, or engineer systems where it is necessary to know about that if we were to simply discard Newton's theory as "false"? Science (and indeed all knowledge) is all about what some deride as mere "scaffolding." But I don't deride it - and that's why I'm a contextual absolutist.
nitrogen 15y ago
IMO social policy should focus on the average case, but with easy-to-access exceptions dealing with the best and worst cases. Society is done a great disservice if gifted students are prevented from reaching their potential (thus preventing them from being as beneficial to society as they could) for the sake of the potential dropouts.

dctoedt 15y ago

> I didn't become the person I am today as a result of anyone else's effort but my own. Just as I'm not posting this reply as a result of anyone else's effort but my own (not). > Even the poor inner city kid has free choice. ... At adulthood, ... all people are responsible for their own lives (excepting people who truly cannot help it, i.e., those with grave mental illnesses). I used to think free will and personal responsibility were among the absolutes of the universe. These days I'm not nearly so sure. We know so little about why different people perceive the world, and choose behaviors, in such different ways. "Grave mental illness" seems to be just one end of a continuum.

maxharris 15y ago
I disagree. I would say something like, "I decided to drive 70 MPH instead of 65, or to drive over flying, or this particular route instead of the other one, which is more scenic, but slightly longer, etc." I am not in any way saying that people don't reap the benefits of living in society with other people. But your ability to travel at 70 MPH came as a result of people thinking on their own first, which set the stage for productive exchanges between people on a team. The fact that this is a virtuous cycle often confuses people into thinking that thought is a collective activity. But it is not: while I have benefited immensely from people grading my exams and papers, in conversation, code reviews, pair programming (from an earlier career), etc., I still had to prepare for all of those things alone. Without independent thought, what value could I bring to the table?